Is homosexuality natural?
I was watching this history documentary and this guy who was very high up in the German government in World War II called Himler said that Homosexuals no matter how many times they tried to produce could not produce offspring and therefore were wasteful to the nation. He said that Homosexuals should be treated like alcoholics or drug addicts and incarcerated for their own wellbeing.
There was an ex-prison warden on Capital radio who said that the prisons used to be quite effective at detoxing people before they became infested with drugs and so people had to get clean.
People would beat on people who were homosexual so they would have to give it up, if we view it in these terms.
I am not endorsing a point of view here.
What do people think?
Posted from TSR Mobile
There was an ex-prison warden on Capital radio who said that the prisons used to be quite effective at detoxing people before they became infested with drugs and so people had to get clean.
People would beat on people who were homosexual so they would have to give it up, if we view it in these terms.
I am not endorsing a point of view here.
What do people think?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Scroll to see replies
Biologically homosexuals are perfectly capable of conceiving, that there is just homophobic, nazi propaganda. Of course a homosexual person would not want to have sex with someone of the opposite gender but it is physically possible for them to.
The Nazis just needed a legitimate, scientific reason for killing them or locking them in labour camps, since, although it was not desirable from an Aryan image point of view for Germans to be homosexual, they don't actually pose a threat or are a detriment to society. But suddenly say that they are a waste of space because they cannot have children and expand the Aryan race, then suddenly you have a reason to get rid of them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The Nazis just needed a legitimate, scientific reason for killing them or locking them in labour camps, since, although it was not desirable from an Aryan image point of view for Germans to be homosexual, they don't actually pose a threat or are a detriment to society. But suddenly say that they are a waste of space because they cannot have children and expand the Aryan race, then suddenly you have a reason to get rid of them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by theo1jinx
it is natural to show affection towards the same sex but I'm not really sure if it's natural to stick your penis into their colon
Is it natural to stick your penis in a woman's mouth?
Original post by Lady Comstock
Is it natural to stick your penis in a woman's mouth?
No it isn't but it is so damn good for us
None of them is natural by definition is it?(edited 9 years ago)
It might not be natural but that doesn't make it wrong.
Original post by restless5oul
Haha! Good one! For a moment I thought you were going to be sane by saying "biological homosexuals in the animal kingdom can reproduce" (though I'm not aware of any) then sure, you'd have a point. Asexuals in the animal kingdom can also reproduce with no external aid. Humans, however, are not asexual or homosexual in the strict biological sense. Neither can we reproduce through parthenogenesis, like the komodo dragon. This is pure liberal fantasy land.
What can homosexuals in intend not to partake in reproduction do? They can adopt or one of the men can become the beta male, whilst the other is given free reign to ruin a woman's life by carrying a child she will have to give up.
Of course, homosexuals are just men at the end of the day: they can work hard and will simply die a death with nobody to continue their legacy. It's something they must consider before assigning a sexual preference to themselves.
Original post by theo1jinx
No it isn't but it is so damn good for us None of them is natural by definition is it?
None of them is natural by definition is it?Don't see why it wouldn't be natural. The fact that we are capable of doing it, and if you stripped away all man-made things we could still do it, suggests that it is 'natural'.
Mouths function in many different ways, including food consumption. I don't see why they can't function as a means of sexual pleasure.
yes. /end thread
Leave gays alone 
Original post by CycleofSpin
I was watching this history documentary and this guy who was very high up in the German government in World War II called Himler said that Homosexuals no matter how many times they tried to produce could not produce offspring
I don't know too much about the biology of sex, but last time I checked a gay man can still impregnate a woman and a gay woman can still be impregnated by a man.
Not sure if sperm/eggs from gay people are any different to ones from straight people. So I disagree.
Original post by CycleofSpin
and therefore were wasteful to the nation. He said that Homosexuals should be treated like alcoholics or drug addicts and incarcerated for their own wellbeing.
Even if we do assume that gay people cannot reproduce by any means they can still be productive people. They can work, build, create, pay tax, etc etc. Alcoholics and drug addicts, on the other hand, will be less able to do these things.
Original post by CycleofSpin
Is homosexuality natural?
Depends what you mean by natural. The Oxford Dictionary defines natural as:
''Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind''.
By that definition homosexuality is natural. Even if it wasn't why does that matter?
Depends on what you define as "nature". Are you referring to evolution? Biology? In the grand scheme of things though the principles of human biology would suggest that homosexuality is a by-product of heterosexual behaviour. Classifying this consequence as "nature" is debatable. I allude to the arguments of hereditary predispositions and societal influence.
Either way, it is pretty disgusting
It doesn't matter. It is a naturalistic fallacy to derive an ought from an is. Homosexuality being natural or unnatural says nothing about whether it is right or wrong.
We know that both incest and cannibalism are, for example observed in rats, that is to say that incest and cannibalism are both natural, it doesn't make them right.
We know that both incest and cannibalism are, for example observed in rats, that is to say that incest and cannibalism are both natural, it doesn't make them right.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by limetang
It doesn't matter. It is a naturalistic fallacy to derive an ought from an is. Homosexuality being natural or unnatural says nothing about whether it is right or wrong.
We know that both incest and cannibalism are, for example observed in rats, that is to say that incest and cannibalism are both natural, it doesn't make them right.
We know that both incest and cannibalism are, for example observed in rats, that is to say that incest and cannibalism are both natural, it doesn't make them right.
This is why this debate is circular and useless.
If it's natural, things in nature can be wrong.
If it's unnatural, unnatural things can be good.
Original post by I'm a Bad Boy
Either way, it is pretty disgusting
Good thing you don't have to engage in it then.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
